Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Military experience is good. But it's not everything.
We're fighting two wars.
Does that mean the health of our nation should take a backseat?
What about our unstable economy? Is it dying of neglect?
Our natural resources are running out and we treat inventing a large scale, potentially carbon-free alternative energy source like a side hobby.
To say nothing of our schools, our infrastructure and our health.
The last thing we should do is elect a one-trick pony to the oval office.
Our mindset is war, war, war.
True. The military is overstretched.
But I don't think Bush has revealed to the world the limits of American military power.
I think he has shown the world the unrelenting application of incompetence.
Incompetence and the delusion of global dominance is the single reason we are engaged in war.
International terrorism, while horrific, has been around forever and it will continue.
We fear what would happen if there is another terrorist attack on American soil.
I posit that we should fear responding to another terrorist attack in the same way we did 8 long years ago.
Things have changed since the World wars, Vietnam and the Cold War. McCain brings 50 years of the wrong era of experience to a 21st century job.
Electing someone that has a militaristic reflex is more dangerous than electing someone who understands you don't fight car bombs or hijacked planes with a geographically-laden army of tanks, fighter jets and occupying brigades.
The oval office has had a severe deficit of perspective and competence since 2000.
It's created the illusion that we need to elect a battle-tested militia man to save us from evil.
The truth is we need to elect someone who can save us from ourselves. From our own actions. From our own arrogance and ignorance about the world that is emerging. Countries don't need our economic prosperity. They can now create their own.
And we can participate far more successfully in this new world as soon as we realize the futility of trying to stop that.
And as soon as we take a step back. Re-calibrate. And kickstart our commitment to ingenuity, science, education, and health and welfare of our citizens.
We need a president who can make our country stronger.
Not just our military.
Comments (2)
Yes, I completely agree with your observations. While I fear the threat of terrorism, quite frankly I fear the housing crisis even more.
I fear the fact that American students perform so poorly on standardized tests in geography, math and science (among other subjects) compared to their respective counterparts around the world.
I fear the fact that globally so many people speak and understand our language yet we never thought it important to learn any other language other than our owm. How did we think this would really help us in the long run?
I understand the argument behing the "survival of the fittest" in terms of maintaining a strong and technically sophisticated military but let us not underestimate the power and wisdom of diplomacy (building bridges with our allies and yes, a willingness to meet with our enemies).
This is the type of muscle we should be interested in flexing now.
February 24, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prior military service isn't even something I think about. Heck, George W. kind of served and he wound up getting a lot of troops killed for no reason. Bill Clinton didn't serve before his presidency but then served well as commander in chief by not using out military for no reason.
Beyond that, this is a historic campaign -- are we really going to continue to expect our presidents to have served in the military when we have women running? Because the military doesn't treat women equally. Or what if we have a gay presidential candidate? Would we expect them to have served in the military even though the military actively discriminates against that lifestyle?
There is no reason at all to demand that the president be a former military enlistee. Yes, the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces but they don't make practical strategic decisions and they never get near a battlefield.
February 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment